Before you vote Tuesday, please watch this entire video and listen carefully to this emotional outcry on behalf of four Americans that were assassinated in Libya, and their families. The cover-up continues unabated. As Americans, will we let Barack Obama get away with this?

Democrat Pat Caddell:

“This White House. This president. This vice president. This secretary of state. All of them are willing apparently to dishonor themselves and this country for the cheap prospect of getting reelected; are willing to cover-up and lie and the worst thing is, the very people who are supposed to protect the American people with the truth, the leading mainstream media . . . They have become a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people!”

Credit to Kevin Anderson for finding this YouTube for MRC

WE WILL NEVER FORGET!

American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist— Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

In all candor, I actually believe Barack Obama thinks most of us Americans are stupid regarding the decisions he made and his inaction regarding the Benghazi assassinations. Those four Americans absolutely knew help was on the way and that it would be just a matter of an hour or two before they would be rescued. They had no doubt we would answer the call! They knew we would never leave them high and dry. I am furious that the person we grant authority to as commander in chief would leave an American Ambassador and three other great American patriots to fight their guts out for seven hours as he watched through high definition TV screens from a drone!

We will never forget!

Barack Obama, Commander in Chief?

American Values: “In God We Trust” — “Liberty” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist— Dedicated to all members of The United States military and their families

It may surprise many of you, but I voted for Obama in 2008. This time around, I am voting for Mitt Romney, and here’s why:

#1 – Obama’s slim list of accomplishments – After his first term in office, Obama can tout a very sparse list of successes. We had all expected, and he promised, so much more. Yes, he bailed out General Motors and Chrysler, and we are all glad to see those companies doing better, but those companies make up less than 1 percent of the United States’ total economic activity. The vast majority of the U.S. economy continues to languish in the doldrums of the slowest recovery ever.

If Obama wants to really help the auto industry, he needs to lift the rest of America out of its economic slump so that more people have the money to buy cars. Also, one of the best ways to help the auto industry is to be more tough with cheaters like China who game the system in order to sell cheaper goods than American companies. Everyone knows China is cheating on trade and that they are a “currency manipulator,” but Obama has refused to take a hard line against them. Mitt Romney has promised to label China a “currency manipulator” on the first day in office.

#2 – Mitt Romney is a man with a particular set of skills that are needed so badly in America today. This is a man who has spent his entire career turning around troubled enterprises, from small businesses to large businesses to the Olympics. And America needs a turnaround!

Today, fewer children believe that they will be better off than their parents than at any time in our history. Americans all over the country have began accepting “the new normal” of low job opportunities, declining incomes, and a weaker America abroad. That is a sad commentary on the state of the American Dream.

Politicians and economists are already talking about a “post-American world,” an America in decline much the same way England, Spain, and Rome all rose and fell from power throughout history. They believe America’s days of power are numbered. I can’t accept that way of thinking. I want to believe America’s brightest days are yet ahead.

As far as particular skills that Romney has, I think nobody knows better than him how to champion small businesses and help them grow. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and that was Romney’s career for 25 years. I also think that Romney will be able to use his knowledge of business organization to streamline government by consolidating departments and getting rid of duplicate and wasteful spending. Romney knows how to make organizations much more cost efficient while preserving the programs that Americans depend on.

#3- Obama’s Benghazi-gate – In regard to the terrorist attack last month in Libya that murdered our ambassador, we now know enough to make a judgement call on Obama’s actions. We now know that the ambassador had requested increased security multiple times before the attack but was denied each time. In fact, the Obama administration ended up reducing security at the embassy one month before the attack.

We also know that Obama refused to act in order to save those at the embassy while the attack was taking place. In fact, three different requests for aid were denied during the attack. Planes in Italy were just an hour away and could have been deployed at a moments notice during the attack which lasted over seven hours. But Obama, fearing another “Black Hawk Down” episode, did nothing.

We also know that the Obama administration’s first explanation as to why the attacks occured (namely, an anti-Muslim video and a “spontaneous protest” to that video) have been proven demonstrably false. It took Obama two weeks before he admitted that the cause of the attack was terrorism, and not the anti-Muslim video he had initially cited. We know that a terrorist organization claimed credit for the attack just hours after the initial attack and that the Obama administration was aware of the terrorist group’s announcement. In summary, we know that Obama tried to cover-up his irresponsible, reckless and naive actions in order to help his chances to get re-elected. I know “cover-up” is a strong word, but in this case the evidence is overwhelming. If there is one thing American’s expect and deserve, it is that we expect our President to tell us the truth, even when the truth is hard.

Are such actions fitting of our Commander-in-Chief? The terrorist attack in Benghazi Libya last month was the first time an American ambassador has been murdered in over 30 years. At one point in time, killing an ambassador was just cause for declaring war. But our ambassador wasn’t just murdered, he was also tortured and raped then dragged bloody through the streets of Benghazi. American’s should be angered by the Obama administrations mishandling of the situation, and especially over the cover-up that ensued the weeks after the attack.

UPDATE: Greta van Susteren and Liz Cheney discuss the president’s debate statement he did all he could to protect our people during the attack, while our forces only an hour’s flight away in Italy weren’t deployed during any of a 7 hour, multi-wave attack our leaders were able to watch from drones overhead. Even an F-18 flyover may have scared the attackers off, but nothing was done. Meanwhile on one occasion Reagan acted within 90 minutes to scramble fighters to take down a possible terrorist threat in the sky. Decisive leadership can get things done. The question is: where was the president? Where was the Secretary of State? Wouldn’t the Secretary of Defense have given the president a choice of assets to deploy in the region? Nothing was done, and our president says he did all he could? Greta: “we just sat and watched.”

Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

Three emails were obtained.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time – or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began – carried the subject line “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack” and the notation “SBU”, meaning “Sensitive But Unclassified.”

The text said the State Department’s regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was “under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

The message continued: “Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four … personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support.”

A second email, headed “Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi” and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that “the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared.” It said a “response team” was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: “Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack.”

The message reported: “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli.”

Were these just a few emails lost in the rush? Nope. According to the Examiner:

“Fox is told that approximately 300-400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding,” van Susteren added. One of the addresses that received the emails “is the White House Situation address,” she said.

What else do we need to know? Hundreds received these emails, including the White House situation room. There’s no room for confusion. Immediate reports did not suggest a spontaneous protest to a YouTube video. They clearly indicated a terrorist attack.

While I have a hard time calling anyone a liar, it’s getting harder and harder to come up with plausible excuses for how the White House could possibly have maintained in all honesty a position that the attack in Benghazi, which they watched through military drones, was a reaction to the YouTube video. It’s getting nigh impossible to come up with any possible explanation other than utter incompetence or dishonesty. For all Obama’s bluster in Monday night’s debate about “one thing [he] learned” is the need as Commmander-in-Chief to send clear messages and avoid changing positions, his record on this point is disastrously inept.

With this information, how can the White House get to a place where it blames an irrelevant YouTube video for 2 weeks rather than saying it was a terrorist attack? How can it send out the UN ambassador to perpetuate this story with such certitude?

While officials did [early on] mention the possible involvement of “extremists,” they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

It would be one thing to come out and say “we just don’t know what happened, we are investigating and will let you know when we know something.” But it’s clearly another to blame a cause the evidence before you indicates is wrong.

Here’s CBS’ video report:

If, as this report suggests, the president really thought terrorists were behind the attack, why didn’t the administration slow down and say they just didn’t know? Why take such a definitive position contradicted by the evidence?

Something is really off here, and the president needs to come clean. Was it that the White House truly believed the CIA report mentioned by the Washington Post that suggested the Benghazi attack was a result of the video? If so is this a case of willingly believing the story that suits you best despite significant evidence to the contrary? What does it say about the president or his administration that he’s willing to ignore facts staring him in the face? My bottom line is that it’s getting tougher to find ways to let the White House off the hook here.

I’m not going to hammer on the president for his choice of words on Jon Stewart. I’m not a fan of the Dems’ insulting attempts at faux outrage over things like “binders” so I’ll not do anything but quote our president. But we can safely say, as President Obama did, when Americans die our president’s foreign policy is obviously “not optimal.” And when you look back at the past four years, really, we can’t say what’s happened are mere “bumps in the road,” either, but the result of having chosen the wrong road altogether. Today in the New York Post Amir Taheri put it more succinctly: the president’s foreign policy has “failed.”

So before tonight’s debate about foreign policy, let’s remind ourselves just how sub-optimal this president’s foreign policy has been, and how bumpy the road was. People may criticize Mitt for not having foreign policy experience, but Obama only has four more years than Mitt has, having had none when he started on the job training. The question is whether Barack Obama learned anything during that time, and perhaps the biggest indictment contained in the mess in Libya is that his record indicates he hasn’t learned what he needs to, and is willing to close his eyes to the obvious in favor of a narrative that supports, if tenuously, his world view. Meanwhile I’m sure someone else with a different philosophy, like peace through American strength, would do a lot better.

His One Argument: bin Laden

Let’s start by giving the president partial credit for his one “achievement.” In a true team effort, American intelligence, after years of searching that culminated during the Obama administration, was able to find Osama bin Laden. The president then sent a team of experts into Pakistan to kill him. Still, a number of things still trouble me about this “success.”

First, the president’s beaming over the mission and “spiking the football.” While it’s a comforting thought bin Laden is no longer a threat, call me old fashioned but it does not seem appropriate to throw a party when anyone is killed, even if a confessed terrorist and murderer. The appropriate attitude seems to be one of quiet gratitude, and confidence we were able to accomplish what we needed to protect American citizens from harm. But not elation.

Second, the president’s taking personal credit for the achievement. What happened was a success due to years of work starting in the Bush administration and involving hundreds if not thousands of people from intelligence gatherers to planners of the raid to those who actually executed it. Let’s not forget the president watched it on TV, and was not on the ground personally in Pakistan. He deserves credit as the person at the head of the team, but to the extent he deserves that credit, he deserves as much blame for what went wrong in Libya. And gracious leaders give credit where due. I agree he should be congratulated for making the decision to move forward. He took a risk and it paid off. But I disagree with President Clinton’s assessment that this decision took any special fortitude. I believe Mitt’s right that any president would have made the same decision. So Obama’s credit is for being in the seat at the head of table when the team succeeded, and for calling for the two-point conversion to win the game. He succeeded, and gets the credit for that strategic decision. But it was the team on the field, not him that deserves any glory, and an end-zone dance seems particularly inappropriate.

Third, in his desire to take personal credit, the president shared sensitive intelligence information. He volunteered the identity of the team that carried it out, putting them and their families in danger. And this was one of many leaks, coming per Dianne Feinstein directly out of the White House, of sensitive US information. The president seems willing to compromise security when it suits his political purposes, which I find difficult to condone.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the success of this one mission does not mean Al Qaeda is really “on the run,” as has been claimed by the Dems. They’re still in Afghanistan and now are in Libya. And whatever the president’s policy in this regard, despite bin Laden’s removal, the date of Al Qaeda’s last successful terrorist attack is no longer 9/11/01. It’s 9/11/12.

Now, to more problematic issues: world hot spots

1. Libya. Four Americans are killed in Libya despite pleas for additional security. Reports out of the State Department, the intelligence community and the White House contradict who knew what when. Immediately after the attack the president made a generically deniable statement about not letting terrorism deter us, but spent the next two weeks allowing the American people to believe it’s somehow the fault of our freedom of speech and an obscure YouTube video, using rhetoric that could suggest we somehow deserve what happened. Why? Again President Obama and the Democrats insisted on “spiking the football” over Osama bin Laden’s death at their convention, such that it’s an inconvenient truth that Al Qaeda is not really “on the run,” especially in Libya where the president is trying to take credit for “leading from behind.” Contrary to his assertions, Libya is not a model for American foreign policy success as it is now the site of the first assassination of an ambassador in 30 years.

Well, the final Presidential debate will be over in less than 24 hours.

I’m sensing a certain level of stress among some Romney supporters in the lead up to this debate. Sure, it’s human nature to feel anxious just before a big event … especially when we are so invested in Mitt’s success. But I’m not nervous one bit, and here’s why ….

Governor (soon to be “President Elect”) Romney has much more to gain than to lose in this debate. It’s Obama that has the tough job tonight. The non-incumbent challenger generally has a low-bar to clear in these debates. They only have to 1) show that they can credibly be Commander-in-Chief and 2) avoid major gaffes. Mitt has shown that he is more than capable of achieving this based on his first two debate showings.

Much of the “who won the debate?” game is about expectations. Obama was widely expected to be a superior debater/communicator, and it was a race-changing event when he lost the first debate so dramatically. This set up debate number two, where Obama had reset his bar down to the floor. As such, many observers felt that he “won” the second debate (by a much narrower margin than the 1st debate, and more on style than on actual issues according to polls). But the President’s “win” was really more of a “most improved” award … we’ve seen no bounce in the polls for him at all.

Conventional wisdom is that Obama is supposed to trounce Governor Romney tonight, since the topic is Foreign Policy. The problem for Obama, is that his supposed foreign policy superiority is already “baked into the cake” of his poll numbers/support. Obama’s problem arises from the fact that his foreign policy successes begin and end with “Bin Laden is dead.” Sure, that’s a HUGE point, but it’s sort of hard to talk about THAT for 90 minutes straight. And no voter is going to change his mind to vote for Obama on this issue. “Hey yeah, Obama got Bin Laden … I had forgotten that. I guess I’ll vote for him now.”

The debate will give Mitt an opportunity to, once again, unexpectedly impress voters on the depth and breadth of his international experience and knowledge. The media have painted him as a lightweight on foreign policy, someone out of his depth. Mitt can and will highlight his substantial foreign exposure through his public, private, and religious experiences.

The wildcard issue for tonight is Banghazi … and not in a good way for Obama.

Despite the President’s higher foreign policy numbers in general, this recent Ohio poll (that was even a +8% Dem sample) showed Mitt UP 49%-47% on the question: “Do you trust Barack Obama or Mitt Romney more on the issue of Libya?” Mitt did miss an opportunity to fully expose Obama on Libya in debate #2. Don’t expect a replay of that tonight …

Please help us promote this information far and wide before Monday’s debate. (Thank You!)

Count on it: Before Monday night’s last presidential debate, the Obama administration and/or the State Department will release new information surrounding the attack in Benghazi, Libya in a desperate attempt to alter the truth: That their combined efforts for a month to cover-up the fact they could have prevented the assassination of an American ambassador and three other great Americans. And the fact they all knew on September 11th the attack was a pre-planned, sophisticated, terrorist attack. The desecration of Camp David has only just begun this weekend.

The history we are witnessing right now will go down in American legacy as far more serious than anything related to the Watergate scandals. Nixon’s web of deceit was bad. Obama’s is obscene! The stain he is leaving on the Office of President is deplorable. The intelligence community is only now beginning to expose Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton after they falsely and repeatedly blamed the intelligence community for promoting the “movie-trailer video” narrative.

We at MittRomneyCentral know that most of our viewers prefer brief videos. However, I believe the following video contains crucial information every American should see and understand. For if they were to take it all in, not one American voter would ever vote for Mr. Obama. Not one.

THANK YOU to Bret Baier for this comprehensive investigative reporting! If you wish to only watch the portion of video where the Obama administration’s deceit and cover-up began, see the minute descriptions outlined below the video.

I believe Bret Baier’s powerful investigative reporting is important to view from beginning to end. However, if your time is limited, you may want to start at one of these points below and watch the entire piece later:

Beginning to minute 21:55: Actual videos, photographs, interviews, and illustrations of what actually occurred at the consulate September 11th (Warning: some of the footage is graphic)

Minute 22:00: The Cover-Up Begins

Minute 29:15: October 8th, almost one month after the attack, we see Obama actually reveal his main message and reason for the cover-up. He is desperate to prove that he has vanquished terrorism altogether; that al Qaeda’s threat is waning. In fact, the threat of terrorism is advancing! Mr. Obama’s naked hubris in the face of obvious brazen deceit is nothing short of spectacular!

Minute 33:58: The election…The campaigns…Governor Romney calling President Obama out in front of 60+ million Americans in his courageous duty to expose the cover-up!

We must all do out best to expose President Obama’s deceit. Time is so limited now.

For those that are just getting to know Governor Romney or who have not had time to read his books or study his past deeply, you need to understand a very important fact about this man: Mitt Romney knows more about radical Islamic terrorism than any person to ever seek the presidency of the United States. I believe that when he is elected and in office, he will be the most prepared president to face the intense, growing threat of terrorism than any previous person to occupy the Oval Office. Look it up for yourself.